Jump to content

Phoenix_jz

Beta Testers
  • Content Сount

    7,323
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    2050
  • Clan

    [HINON]

Community Reputation

2,484 Superb

About Phoenix_jz

  • Rank
    Rear Admiral
  • Birthday 02/02/1999
  • Insignia

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Getting chased around the rafters of the Wiki Office
  • Interests
    Ammiraglio di 1ª Divisione Incrociatori Pesanti
    -Italian Heavy Cruiser Ace-
    -Punk Rocker-

Recent Profile Visitors

4,132 profile views
  1. While I really can't add anything to the technical notes Big_Spud gave for either Kongo or Dunkerque, to put it in relatively simple and brief terms; The Kongo-class was redesigned from battlecruiser to battleship only because the battlecruiser category was abolished from the IJN. This change in designation did not change their role in Japanese doctrine (directly supporting the heavy night action groups in breaking the USN screen during the 'decisive battle'), or the view of the Japanese Admiralty as to their expendability. They were not considered the equal to any battleships, even if arguably they were far superior combatants to the Fuso and Ise-classes. In effect, they still were battlecruisers, and little about that role changed. That is very much different to the Dunkerque-class battleships. Although easily their most famous design point was to field a battleship capable of hunting down and killing the Deutschland-class cruisers, this was far from their only role. One must not forget that the designs they had been developed from were small, fast battleships intended to catch and kill the faster and better armored (compared to French cruisers) Italian heavy cruisers, and also be superior to the 305mm-gunned Italian battleships should they run into them. When the Dunkerque-class was designed, this very much still figured into their design and intended use. In the event of a war with Germany, they were to be the ultimate weapon against the Deutschland-class - but likewise, in a war against Italy they would give France a major advantage, as they were fast enough to operate with French cruisers, armored enough to resist any guns in the Italian fleet (this was before the Littorio's were built, and before the WWI battleships were modernized - so the biggest 'sticks' the Italians had was the 305mm/46 M1909), and their guns easily capable of penetrating the armor of the elderly Conte di Cavour and Caio Duilio-class dreadnoughts from long range. This role remained the same against the German fleet, who was in an even worse position than the Italians - and even when they responded with the Scharnhorst-class, the French felt more than comfortable with just the Dunkerque and Strasbourg, as they were adequately armored against the German 28.3cm guns. They very much were 'battleships' compared to what their enemies had at the time, and it was only after the development of 381mm/15" battleships in Europe that they took the back seat. Thus, they still were very much 'battleships' in their time.
  2. ^This is the case right here. The 120/40's were used to fire start shells for night combat, due to the lack of range on the 90mm starshells (and effectiveness of the charge, given how small they were), while the 152mm guns were seen as inadequate from a rate of fire PoV iirc. The 120/40's were only for this purpose though, as not only did they lack any sort of anti-ship ammunition (ammo load was 60 illumination rounds per gun), but also any of the necessary fire control equipment. They were seen as adequate in their ability to quickly illuminate a large area, but their effective range was far to limited - only 5000 meters, when in night exercises it had proven possible for battleships to spot other battleships at 8000 meters. Because of this, they were seen as still unsuitable of engagement, as the navy required something with a longer range (9000 to 10000 meters at least) and ideally a higher rate of fire. In the meantime, it would be unlikely for the battleships to use such weapons at night due to the proximity they required - rather, it had been discovered that the battleships could easily benefit from star shells fired by other ships, such as the destroyers, and engage at ranges beyond 27000 meters. The only issue in that regard would be the fact that the 120/15 that was fitted to many destroyers and some cruisers had even worse effective range, 4000 meters.
  3. I was not aware, this looks like it could be quite interesting!
  4. Phoenix_jz

    New Ship

    If we take the Ansaldo 4x3 cruiser and replace the 152mm guns with 135mm/53...
  5. Phoenix_jz

    America's industry vs Japan

    Simply put, not country has the ability to produce that many warships - although less for lack of capacity than the lack of weapons and guidance systems to equip them with. Steel is cheap, but radars and missiles are very expensive. That being said, the power if individual ships is much greater nowadays than in the 1940s - so while the number of hulls may not be quite as impressive, the amount of firepower possessed by even a single battlegroup is of terrifying potency.
  6. If I'm not mistaken, the Lyddite shells not High-Explosive shells, but rather were Common shells (CPC), and these are what the British commonly used in WWI. After the experience at Jutland, where very often British shells failed to pierce German armor it should have been able to (but still inflicted considerable damage), which prompted a change to attempt to increase armor-piercing abilities of shells. In this case, it would have been a high explosive shell. German heavy cruisers carried three types of main battery shells (technically four, but only if you include illumination shells); Psgr. L/4,4 (APC) Spr.gr. L/4,7 Bdz (HE, Base-Fuse) Spr.gr. L/4,7 Kz (HE, Nose-Fuse) In her engagement at Denmark Strait, Prinz Eugen was firing Nose-Fuse HE at Hood, which was in-line with German doctrine (For the Hipper's - if forced to fight a battleship or battlecruiser, they were to fire Nose-Fuse High Explosive and do everything possible to break contact). Over the course of the entire engagement, she fired 178 shells of 203mm caliber, none of which were APC, for 5 hits (2.8% hit rate). The first six 4-gun salvoes (24 shells) were directed at Hood for one hit (4.2%), then switched to fire to Prince of Wales, her first salvo being a broadside. She scored four hits (2.6%), two of which were duds.
  7. Phoenix_jz

    How to make Mouse a grouch...

    Oof, yeah, Karlsruhe was one of the first ships in the game that I could not stand. That being said, I played through her, actually got pretty good at her in the end, and then when I reached Königsberg it was truly a great reward
  8. Phoenix_jz

    America's industry vs Japan

    Indeed - the three giants of the industry (China, Korea, and Japan) accounted for 93.3% of the market in 2017. Source That being said, this still isn't the case with naval construction afaik, which I think is still dominated by North America and Europe, but I don't have recent numbers on that so I might be wrong, especially considering how much Chinese and Korean naval construction had grown over the last decade.
  9. Phoenix_jz

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Not at all. Generally speaking, constructing a battleship as an anti-aircraft platform is a massive mis-allocation of resources, especially as you're optimizing a ship towards a task that is very much different from what a battleship's main role is supposed to be - an 'ultimate' surface combatant. AA armament was geared only towards defending the ship, first and foremost, and in that respect the Iowa did not add anything that made them better anti-aircraft escorts than earlier battleships. Any ship that is being made into an anti-aircraft escort is typically going to emphasis more heavy AA guns, but the Iowa's utilize the same number of heavy AA guns as the prior North Carolina and South Dakota-classes - went 5"/38 Mk.12 in ten Mk.28 twin mounts. The only real improvement in AA capacity the Iowa's brought was the increased number of 40mm and 20mm emplacements, but that had more to do with the fact they were commissioned late in the war when many of the more painful lessons on why you should bring plenty of light AA guns had been learned by the various navies - so around the same time the 'older' fast battleships that had been commissioned in the mid-war had already added many of these guns. By the end of the war, they were all roughly equal in AA ability. So, in summary - the Iowa's were just rolling with the standard American battleship AA. The Iowa's ended up being the best American battleships in spite of their 'need for speed' design because nothing ever succeeded them, and their greater speed was part of what made them the most flexible. If you compare the American fast battleships, South Dakota was an improvement on North Carolina by carrying superior armor, although it had worse TDS, and the Iowa essentially took the South Dakota-class and added 10,000 tons, which was eaten up by extending the bow and massively increasing the propulsion power. Guns changed to the Mk.7 from the Mk.6, and the TDS scheme, while on paper the same, was improved a little bit (but still inferior to North Carolina's). The Iowa's essentially just came out as a 'better' South Dakota, which is to be expected given how much heavier they were. Since this increase was mostly devoted to increased speed, it did grant them greater flexibility. Had the Montana's been built, perhaps people would sing a different tune - although 'only' as fast as the North Carolina and South Dakota-classes, they carried an entire extra turret compared to Iowa, and had far superior armor - plus numerous other improvements, and clocked in as some ~12000-13000 tons heavier. The Iowa's might've been noted for their greater speed, and would've certainly been more flexible in that regard - but otherwise, as surface combatant's they'd be significantly inferior to the Montana-class because of the disparity in armor, and also firepower. Then again, had the Montana's been built, simply put they would have been the most powerful battleships ever built. I might be mistaken, but as far as I know the Montana's weren't conceived specifically to beat the Yamato-class - remember, the USN wasn't entirely sure what the Yamato-class was like. The biggest thing about the Montana's development was keeping the classic standard for a battleship - that it must be protected against it's own guns. In this case, this was the new 16" Mk.8 'Super-Heavy' APC. Whatever new threat the USN had to face, the Montana's would be the ships for it - although most likely severe overkill considering what everyone else was contemplating as far as new battleships!
  10. Phoenix_jz

    How Effective was Battlecruiser idea?

    Well, sort of. The Iowa's were designed specifically to counter the threat from the Kongo-class, which was faster than any American BB at the time but could easily out-fight any heavy cruiser. Thus it was seen as vital to have a 33-knot unit that could counter these ships, as the new generation of battleships were all to be 27 knots. American battleship doctrine had never placed a high premium on speed, instead armor and firepower were priorities. The only reason they decided to build a class of ships capable of breaking 30-knots was to defeat battlecruisers. If not for that threat, than the Iowa's would have never been built, and instead the USN would've built the Montana-class.
  11. Phoenix_jz

    Could we get an Italian heavy cruiser premium, please?

    In this specific case, most of the crew that went overboard did so because they thought the ship was about to be torpedoed again - during the night, a British destroyer (Stuart or Havock, I can't remember which) turned up and fired several rounds into the cruiser before moving off. The obvious assumption was that torpedoes would surely follow, which prompted many to jump. That being said - I wouldn't characterize most RM admirals as cowards, and few if any deserve that title. While certainly some were less aggressive than others, and supermarina was always very cautious, the at-sea admirals tended to be quite aggressive, and there are many cases of commanders who willingly sacrificed and went down with their own ships in order to save other ships - Enrico Baroni in the Espero action is perhaps one of the best examples of that. I'll also note that Iachino's handling of Littorio at the Second Battle of Sirte is perhaps the most aggressive action of a battleship pretty much ever, only rivaled by Warpsite at Narvik. Most admirals shy their battleships away from smokescreens entirely rather than attempt to charge them down. In general, supermarina acted always keeping in mind that no losses could be replaced, and tended to be very domineering towards the actions of admirals at sea. That, on the command level, is probably what most hindered the actions of admirals at sea on a 'morale' level or anything close to bravery or cowardice - and this was affected by the quality of reconnaissance, which is something more relating to the politics of the government and military. The Air Force, with the support of the government (aka, Mussolini), domineered almost every aspect of aviation, so the fleets at sea could never rely on their own air cover. British carriers thus served as a major force multiplier in both strike ability as well as reconnaissance, and the ability to deny the Italians their own - and mistaken counts of enemy ships would cause numerous admirals to be recalled on the basis of their forces being totally outmatched. Moreso than any level of caution or lack thereof from supermarina, lack of radar, or lack of fuel - the lack of cooperation between the Regia Aeronautica and Regia Marina was the most damaging to the ability of any Italian admiral to make contact with an enemy force. The few times the admiral had enough information came as a result of reading British messages (such as 2nd Sirte and the Battle of Mid-June), and generally not though the recon of the RA or Luftwaffe, which rarely proved reliable. Even if the enemy was accurately located, often it would be reported in far greater strength than it actually was - for example, a Luftwaffe aircraft ultimately saved the Operation Pedestal convoy from destruction (and by extension, the island of Malta) by mistaking a Dido-class light cruiser as a Nelson-class battleship, which caused the cruiser interception force to be recalled, turning an assured victory into a strategic defeat.
  12. Phoenix_jz

    Could we get an Italian heavy cruiser premium, please?

    This is NA server, and generally NA, when it isn't caught up in the Pacific war, knows a few British and German ships and that's really it, so it's fairly understandable that few here would have ever known the names of individual Italian ships. The Mediterranean theater was the centerpoint of the naval war for a most of the vital period of the Second World War, but tends to fly under the radar, especially in America - as Americans, beyond supply, tended to have very little to do with it. Among other playerbases, especially the Italian one, the situation is significantly different. That being said, on the question of Gorizia and Pola (and I apologize for that linked thread's quality - that had two posts, and the forum deleted the first one discussing most of her history section)... for the love of God, I really hope WG doesn't give us Pola. Out of the knowledge anyone might have about the class, Pola tends to come up the most often, and for all the wrong reasons. Her career wasn't exactly noteworthy, although she fought in a fair number of actions. However, her end is immortalized by falsehoods, as the British propaganda scheme rolled with the idea of drunken sailors - the idea of the Italian sailors all being buffoons and drunks as soon as the chance was given fit extremely well with the lines of British propaganda at the time, and also played extremely well on the racial stereotypes at the time. Unfortunately, the historiography of this even, at least in the English language, has failed to clear up over time in spite of 70 years having passed since the event and the truth of the matter long since reported. Thus, the jokes over drunken fools (who were, of course, actually men dying of hypothermia) still continue to this day. Kancolle is just one example, where the manifests in the form of the anthropomorphic girl who tends to be silly, gets drunk very often and also tends to start stripping - essentially, playing along exactly with the lines of a story that did not actually happen. As far as the age thing goes with that, I'm not actually clear on the rules, but that's a separate issue - although I think on paper a heavy cruiser isn't 'underage', only DDs, one never really knows with the artstyle... Example 1, Example 2. As I said, thought, that's a Kancolle issue at best, and separate to the historiography of Pola's crew. Outside of Kancolle, a number of 'historical' sites have repeated the same myth, and about a year ago one of our British CCs thought it would would be funny to make a wine-bottle Kobayashi camo meme about it. So it still pops up plenty often, and it's more than a little insulting. So, to say a Pola premium wouldn't go down very well with the Italian community would be an understatement. As far as better candidates go, her sister, Gorizia, is a much better pick. While certainly not well known in the Anglosphere, she was the only Zara-class cruiser to escape the events at Matapan, and went on to see more action than almost any other cruiser in the war, fighting in seven major actions and a plethora of minor ones, acting as the flagship of 3ª Div for most of the war. She and Fiume were the only members of the class to get camouflages, and Gorizia's the only one to get a wartime AA refit, so she's a bit better off than her sisters stat-wise. Not only is she responsible for the longest-ranged hit ever scored by a cruiser, she also proved an impressive knack for avoiding or resisting damage, as an adept torpedo-dodger (averaging over a torpedo a month), and eating up an impressive amount of hits - she once sailed for a convoy escort duty despite having over 200 splinters lodged in her sides and superstructures from bombs, and in another instance after taking blows from a flight of American heavy bombers, escaped to a different port (some 450 km away) under her own power. Just to be clear, the type of damage she took would have sunk pretty much any other wartime cruiser save for maybe Algérie - nevermind preventing them from escaping under their own power. She survived the armistice, and even when without a crew proved impossible to sink in spite of Allied and Axis efforts - thus, even while listing heavily, she was found to be the only Italian heavy cruiser to survive WWII when La Spezia was liberated in 1945. While I don't mean to belittle famous ships like Exeter, or Houston, or Indianapolis, Helena, Prinz Eugen, or a dozen other cruisers that have far more fame and recognition than Gorizia, most of them saw far less action in their careers and lack anything close to the same service record.
  13. Phoenix_jz

    Premium Ship PREVIEW: HMS Exeter

    Happy to have helped! She's a must-have for me, if nothing else for the fact it's Exeter, any gameplay concerns are going to have to be secondary I'll take Aurora over Huang He as a premium any day of the weak. On the one hand, we have a ship that literally did nothing of note in the service of the flag currently flying over it, and has a totally fictional armament. On the other hand, we have the ship that was the terror of Axis destroyers and torpedo boats everywhere, serving throughout WWII Seems like a tough choice...
  14. Phoenix_jz

    16-inch AP vs cruisers

    Vaguely linking webpages without citing specific examples from them is not an argument. That's like me citing the google homepage, because technically you could find evidence to support an argument I make eventually if you sift thought it long enough. The fact of the matter was, battleship main batteries were actually, per-shot, the most accurate ballistic weapons of the war. Out of any type of shells, theirs were the most resistant to atmospheric affects that would cause greater dispersion in lighter shells, and they had the longest effective range. This was also paired with the fact that battleships usually carried the most sophisticated fire control computers available, generally improved versions of what would be used on cruisers (while destroyers usually had 'reduced' versions of cruiser systems, or dual-purpose types). This was also generally paired with the best rangefinding equipment, as battleships could cary longer base-length rangefinders than any other ships, and could carry heavier directors at greater heights. They are also far less susceptible to decreased accuracy because of rough seas or higher speeds, due to their greater stability. The big difference is, battleships seldom engaged other ships, and often did so at extreme ranges, due to the fact they had greater effective ranges. At engagements like Cape Spartiveno, First Sirte, the Battle off Samar, Operation Hailstone, etc, often at extreme ranges battleships brought enemy cruisers and destroyers under extremely accurate fire at ranges no cruiser or destroyer could even remotely hope to respond at. The apparent difference in naval gunnery, when it comes comparing battle results, between the few-and-far-between hits of battleships compared to light cruisers and destroyers, generally comes down to frequency of engagement, rate of fire, and range. Light cruisers and destroyers generally have far greater opportunities to engage targets due to their greater proliferation in navies, which raises opportunities. In combat, light cruisers will often fire around 4-5 rounds per gun in a minute, compared to the average of 1 round per gun per minute for a battleship. That's about 4-5x the number of opportunities in a given engagement for a CL to hit compared to a BB. Likewise, they also tend to fight at much closer ranges. Light cruiser fights almost never exceed 20,000 yards, and destroyers will almost never fight at over 10,000 yards. 10,000 yards or less is point-blank for a battleship, and 20,000 yards or less is medium to short range. Closer ranged fights are much easier from a fire control perspective, and often result in excessively high hit-rates because of ambushes. Just as Washington's hit-rate against Kirishima at the Second Battle of Guadalcanal is not indicative of typical battleship performance at any appreciable range, nor is the hit-rate achieved by Japanese cruisers at the Battle of Savo Island earlier in that same campaign. Perhaps the best example of the disparity that can exist between large-caliber and low-caliber shells in equal-isa conditions is the battles of the Mediterranean. At the Second Battle of Sirte, the battleship Littorio fired 181 shells (15"), while Italian heavy cruisers Gorizia and Trento fired 581 shells (8"). The sole light cruiser, Bande Nere, fired 112 shells (6"). Out of the 874 main-battery rounds fired by the Italian cruisers and battleship, in spite of the inferior weather conditions, 2 direct hits were scored with 6-8 near misses - barely a 1% hit rate. British cruisers (one 6", three 5.25") fired 1553 rounds, hit nothing, and failed to score splinter damage. British destroyer fire (10 ships) brings this total over 2,800 rounds fired, and adds the single hit scored by Allied ships in this action. The battleship and three cruisers were able to score more hits than the entire British force, both in raw number and by percentage fired, in spite of firing far less ammunition. The weather conditions affected Italian range finding abilities more, but the larger size of the Italian ships and their heavier-calibers guns were able to offset the affects of the bad weather more than the British cruisers and destroyers (well, for the most part. Bande Nere had a roll rate of up to 27º, and ultimately the only two Italian ships present who had fire control systems capable of handling the roll rates experienced were Littorio, and just barely Gorizia). Even in fair-weather battles, the same thing can be seen. The heaver calibers are always of superior accuracy. For example, 8" guns proved superior to 6" guns in several long-range fights, such as the the Battle of the River Plate, the Battle of Cape Spartivento, the First Battle of the Java Sea, the Battle of the Komandorski islands. Or, if we want to go back before WWII, the Battle of the Falkland Islands in WWI. The heavier guns are almost always the more accurate ones. As for World of Warships? It's a game, not a sim. Hit rates are exaggerated, although less so by the dispersion mechanics than by the fact that ships are dimensionally twice as large as they should be, and perhaps most of all how exaggerated the fire control abilities of ships are - namely, the human player. The ability for the player to direct fire with the aid of the Mk.I eyeball and the human brain against pixels on a screen with the aid of a point-and-click mouse is simply far superior to the fire direction of an electro-mechanical computer being fed by inputs from an optical or radar rangefinder against a target thousands of meters away, controlled by humans under the stress of fighting hours-long battles. And that is the biggest reason why hit rates are so much higher in-game than irl.
  15. Phoenix_jz

    WG - Please look at the uncounterable DD rush

    This. This so much. Too many BB players see DDs as not worth shooting because 'muh damage numbers' No. You hit them hard from the start if you can, and reduce their options. Overpens might disappoint you, but each overpen is still almost 1000 damage that hurts a lot more on a DD than it does on any other ship type.
×